The Supreme Court building is viewed from its closed gateway. INQUIRER FILE PHOTO
The has had it with a lawyer who had once been suspended for serious misconduct and then snubbed an investigation of another alleged wrongdoing in which he claimed that he could bribe appellate justices to overturn the drug conviction of a client鈥檚 son for P160,000.
In a decision authored by Associate Justice Japar Dimaampao, the high tribunal disbarred William Delos Santos and ordered him to return the money he got from his client, plus a 6-percent interest, according to a summary of the ruling released on Thursday.
A woman, Norma Flores, had filed a complaint in the Supreme Court seeking to disbar Delos Santos after he failed to give her money back when the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed her son鈥檚 conviction on charges of selling and possessing illegal drugs.
She said that sometime in 2015, Delos Santos 鈥渃oaxed鈥� her into giving him P160,000 that he could use to pay off the CA justices who were hearing an appeal of the Manila Regional Trial Court鈥檚 ruling on her son鈥檚 case.
Delos Santos allegedly told Flores that it was the 鈥渙nly option鈥� to get a favorable judgment for her son.
鈥楴ecessary arrangement鈥�
But to her dismay, the CA affirmed her son鈥檚 conviction.
Flores then confronted Delos Santos, who told her that he did not know what happened. He insisted that he had made 鈥渢he necessary arrangement with the justices, including his facilitator inside the Court of Appeals,鈥� the Supreme Court said.
Delos Santos promised Flores he would return her money, but he didn鈥檛, prompting her to file the complaint. In response, the Supreme Court directed Delos Santos to comment on her allegations.
When he failed to comply, the court referred his case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation and recommendation.
Disrespect
Despite due notice, Delos Santos failed to attend a mandatory conference and to submit the required pleadings. Following this, the IBP Investigating Commissioner found him liable for gross misconduct and recommended his disbarment.
The IBP Board of Governors adopted the Investigating Commissioner鈥檚 recommendation but modified the penalty鈥攐rdering Delos Santos to return the P160,000, with legal interest, to Flores.
The Supreme Court said that Delos Santos鈥� failure to comply with its notice of resolution, which required him to comment on the complaint, gave credence to the allegations against him.
It said that his 鈥渙bstinate snobbery to comply with [the Court鈥檚 and the IBP鈥檚] orders not only betrays a recalcitrant flaw in his character, [but] also underscores his disrespect of lawful orders which is only too deserving of reproof.鈥�
The Court also noted his previous suspension from practicing law in another case where he was found to have engaged in 鈥渦nlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.鈥�
鈥淗ence, on account of his previous suspension and his evident violations of the Lawyer鈥檚 Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility in the present case, the Court stressed that he deserved no less than the ultimate penalty of disbarment,鈥� the Supreme Court said.
According to Supreme Court spokesperson Brian Hosaka, a motion for reconsideration may be filed within the 鈥渞eglementary period鈥� of 15 days after receiving a copy of the decision.